Catastrophic intracerebral haemorrhage: a written directive, a divided family, and a request for tracheostomy and PEG
79-year-old woman, day 3 after a 40 mL right basal ganglia haemorrhage. She is intubated with GCS 5 (E1 V1 M3), no eye opening, no verbal output, and no motor response other than extension to pain; brainstem reflexes are present. Two years ago she completed a written advance directive naming her son as health care agent and stating that if she had a severe stroke with little chance of meaningful recovery she would not want prolonged life support or a feeding tube. The daughter, who lives locally and has been the main caregiver, insists on everything, including tracheostomy and PEG, and says her mother did not understand the form. The son is wavering. Nursing staff are divided and the attending requests a family meeting.
1. Who is the appropriate decision-maker, how much weight does the written directive carry, and what would you do before the meeting?
Read the worked answer
Who decides
In most US jurisdictions a written advance directive that names a health care agent gives that person legal priority, so the son is the surrogate; the daughter is next in line, not the decider. Her view that her mother did not understand the form deserves exploration, but a signed directive whose language directly addresses severe stroke, prolonged life support and tube feeding is strong, specific evidence of the patient's wishes.
Weight of the directive
This is not a futility dispute; it is substituted judgment. The document describes this exact scenario, and the surrogate's duty is to follow it rather than to decide what he personally would want.
Before the meeting
- Locate the original document, check for a newer directive or POLST, and confirm state law on surrogate hierarchy.
- Confirm and document that she lacks decision-making capacity.
- Prepare prognostic information and be honest about uncertainty: ICH score components, the likelihood of regaining meaningful function, and the fact that tracheostomy does not change mortality in this situation.
- Invite both children, involve palliative care early, and consider an ethics consult before conflict hardens rather than as a last resort.
- Frame the meeting as honouring her mother's documented wishes, not as son versus daughter.
Bottom line: the son decides, guided by a directive that is on point; the meeting aims to help the daughter see that following it is not abandonment.
2. Should you agree to tracheostomy and PEG placement now? What is a time-limited trial, and what milestones would you set?
Read the worked answer
Should you agree now?
No. Tracheostomy in a patient with GCS 5 and a 40 mL ganglionic haemorrhage prolongs dying rather than restoring function, and a PEG is precisely the intervention the directive excluded. Neither is an emergency, so there is time to do this properly.
The role of a time-limited trial
A time-limited trial is legitimate when prognosis is genuinely uncertain and the goal can be measured within a defined window. It must be agreed in advance with explicit endpoints; it is not a way of deferring the conversation.
Proposed milestones (5–7 days)
- Return of command-following or purposeful movement, improving brainstem function, ability to protect the airway and participate in a spontaneous breathing trial.
- If these are not met, tracheostomy and PEG will not be performed.
- If they are not met, the plan becomes protocolised comfort-focused extubation: stop sedation, premedicate with an opioid, add an anticholinergic if needed, and support the family at the bedside.
Documentation
Record the plan, the participants and the exit criteria, and brief the whole team so practice does not drift. Reassess daily - the family will remember whether you kept your word.
Bottom line: decline tracheostomy and PEG now; if a trial is used, make it time-limited with measurable endpoints and a pre-agreed comfort-focused exit plan.
3. The daughter says she will sue if the team gives up, and the next day the patient develops a fever; the daughter demands full code status. How do you proceed?
Read the worked answer
The fever
Evaluate it and treat for comfort. Cultures and examination are appropriate, and antibiotics are reasonable if they relieve symptoms - but their purpose is comfort, not cure of a condition from which she cannot recover.
The legal threat
A threat to sue does not change the ethical standard, and it should be met neither with defensiveness nor with capitulation to non-indicated treatment. Most institutions expect the team to follow the directive through the authorised surrogate, with ethics committee involvement and meticulous documentation, rather than unilateral withdrawal. Know the local rule: some states allow withholding or withdrawing over a surrogate's objection only through a defined process.
The family conversation
- Hear the daughter out; insistence often reflects guilt, anticipatory grief, or a belief that a tracheostomy would let her mother speak or go home. Correct that with specific information.
- Name what will not be withdrawn: analgesia, dyspnoea relief, mouth care, presence and time.
- Reaffirm that the son holds authority, while aiming for shared understanding rather than a vote.
- Escalate to the ethics committee and use the conflict-resolution policy rather than ending the relationship.
Code status
Discuss CPR in concrete terms: in this situation it is unlikely to restore meaningful life and may cause suffering. If the daughter insists, document the discussion and revisit it - do not let code status become the price of the relationship.
Bottom line: comfort-focused care, ethics involvement and persistent relationship-building, with clear documentation of what was offered, declined and why.